Thanks Francis, I'd almost forgotten why I don't debate with you. Have fun with Bruce.
Michael On 2010-09-09, at 6:15 PM, Francis Drouillard wrote: > Your ignorance of basic economic principles is absolutely stunning. > > But you're in good company. There are many in Sacrament, CA and Washington, > D.C. that think just like you, which is why our economy isn't improving. They > have no idea how to meet a payroll let alone what drives businesses to hire. > > None of them will take any responsibility for the policies they enacted. They > blame Bush. Well why is it that Obama took the worst of the Bush economic > policies and amplified them? From TARP to stimulus to cash-for-clunkers (not > to mention Obamacare), Obama/Pelosi/Reid are out of control on spending. None > of benefits of they've harped about have materialized. > > Not to worry, though. Americans showed we're not racist in 2008. An in 2010, > despite 26-percenters like you and Bruce, we're going to show we're not > socialist either. > > Time to drastically reduce the size of federal government. > > > On Sep 9, 2010, at 1:59 PM, Michael Luscombe wrote: > >> On 2010-09-09, at 4:44 PM, Francis Drouillard wrote: >> >>>> Everything has an elasticity. >>>> >>>> McDonalds is not going to hire 10x more employees because they cost one >>>> tenth as much. >>> >>> Nor would anyone familiar with them infer that from a Supply Demand Curve. >>> >>> But the basic observation holds -- if you reduce the cost of something, >>> demand for it will increase. >> -- >> >> No, it doesn't hold. That's what elasticity means. Demand for milk will not >> skyrocket if you reduce the price significantly. It has everything to do >> with where the product sits on the "need vs. want" spectrum. >> >> If the business is operating right now, then it has enough staff to do so. >> The market has been flooded with potential minimum-wage employees for some >> time. >> >> >>>> They need a range of employees to operate. If the hourly rate goes down, >>>> it's more likely that businesses will hire more employees on a part-time >>>> basis, to reduce the number of benefits they'll be required to provide, >>>> while spending far less in wages overall. >>> >>> Wage rates aren't what's keeping employment down in this economy. Rather, >>> it's the uncertainty promulgated by our current administration as well as >>> its outright hostility towards businesses in general. >> -- >> >> Reducing the minimum wage will only reduce discretionary spending and >> further erode consumer confidence. >> >> The economy sucks because of the last decade of focus on tax breaks for the >> wealthy and pro-business regulation/de-regulation. Easy credit in the >> 90's-00's means that the economy was artificially robust, and lower wages >> and high debt load now means that the economy is artificially low. >> >> Tightening wages will only reduce spending. Business expenses will always be >> too high when nobody is buying. No one would be talking about expenses if >> revenues are up. >> >> Too many years of idiotic Republican spending and economic practices. >> >> Nothing trickled down. No surprise there. >> >> >>>> Being underemployed without benefits is worse than unemployment for many, >>>> despite being off welfare. >>> >>> How so? What are the benefits of unemployment for those that aren't on >>> welfare? Isn't some income better than none at all? >> -- >> >> An amount of income that makes you ineligible for welfare, but not enough to >> cover your bills simply eats up your time to look for a new job, while >> stressing you the fuck out because you still can't pay the bills. >> >> Have you never been underemployed? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "StrataList-OT" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/stratalist-ot?hl=en.
